Gravity doesn't allow that. Either gravity was created after the big bang. Or it doesn't exist at all.

It all depends on what you mean by "after the Big Bang", but in short, gravity certainly does allow that.

According to theory, a lot of distinct events happened in the Big Bang during the first second after it. Heck, a lot happened in the first fractions
of a nano second.

It is thought that within the first 10^-43 seconds after After the Big Bang (that's 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second after), the
four fundamental forces were all equal, and possibly even just one force instead of the four forces we have today (gravity being one of them). It
wasn't until after this time (maybe within the fist 10^-36 seconds) that gravity separated itself from the other forces.

Here's a link to a timeline of the early universe according t the Big Bang theory, with an excerpt:

Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10^-43 seconds (1 Planck Time):
This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time, and very little can be known about this period. General relativity
proposes a gravitational singularity before this time (although even that may break down due to quantum effects), and it is hypothesized that the four
fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity) all have the same strength, and are possibly even unified
into one fundamental force, held together by a perfect symmetry which some have likened to a sharpened pencil standing on its point (i.e. too
symmetrical to last). At this point, the universe spans a region of only 10^-35 meters (1 Planck Length), and has a temperature of over 1032°C (the
Planck Temperature).

Grand Unification Epoch, from 10–43 seconds to 10^–36 seconds:
The force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces (which remain unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles)
begin to be created.

edit on 6/10/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

6 down vote favorite 2 How much mass is released from a supernova of a 15 solar-mass star? 20? 25? What is the relation between star mass and mass
ejected? mass astrophysics stars supernova stellar-evolution shareciteimprove this question edited Mar 22 '15 at 10:45 Qmechanic♦ 97.8k121641052
asked Mar 22 '15 at 2:50 Still Thinking 505 add a comment 1 Answer active oldest votes up vote 7 down vote accepted I like to explain this using a
figure from a talk by Marco Limongi some years ago. Initial versus final mass for stars more massive than about 10 solar masses. Based on a given set
of models, the x-axis shows the initial mass of the models and the y-axis the final mass. The different coloured layers show the composition of the
star at the moment of collapse. The mass ejected in the supernova is the difference between the curve marked remnant mass, which specifies (for these
models) how much matter became part of the remnant, and the final mass, which was the mass of the star at collapse, after it had already lost a lot
during its life. The interesting point in this prediction is the change between the supernovae that leave neutron stars versus those that leave black
holes. At the boundary, there's a large drop in the supernova-ejecta mass, because the black hole doesn't have a surface off of which inward falling
material can bounce. But, though the broad trends are probably right, note that this is the result for a particular set of model assumptions (e.g.
mass loss on the main sequence, supernova energy and dynamics). The amount of ejecta for the supernova of a given progenitor is an open question, and
still subject to intense research.

Size and mass of very large stars, from right to left: VY Canis Majoris (17 ± 8 M☉), Betelgeuse (11.6 ± 5.0 M☉), Rho Cassiopeiae (14-30
M☉), and the blue Pistol Star (27.5 M☉). The concentric ovals indicate the size of Neptune's (blue), Jupiter's (red) and the Earth's (grey)
orbits. Properly scaled, the Sun (1 M☉) only appears as a tiny dot in the center of the ovals (click for higher resolution to see Earth orbit and
Sun). The solar mass (M☉) is a standard unit of mass in astronomy, equal to approximately 2×1030 kg. It is used to indicate the masses of other
stars, as well as clusters, nebulae, and galaxies. It is equal to the mass of the Sun (denoted by the solar symbol ⊙︎). This equates to about two
nonillion (two quintillion in the long scale) kilograms: M☉ = (1.98847±0.00007)×1030 kg[1][2] The above mass is about 332946 times the mass of
Earth (M⊕), or 1048 times the mass of Jupiter (MJ). Because Earth follows an elliptical orbit around the Sun, the solar mass can be computed from
the equation for the orbital period of a small body orbiting a central mass.[3] Based upon the length of the year, the distance from Earth to the Sun
(an astronomical unit or AU), and the gravitational constant (G), the mass of the Sun is given by: [displaystyle M_[odot ]=[frac [4pi ^[2]times
(1,mathrm [AU] )^[3]][Gtimes (1,mathrm [yr] )^[2]]]] M_[odot ]=[frac [4pi ^[2]times (1,[mathrm [AU]])^[3]][Gtimes (1,[mathrm
[yr]])^[2]]] The value of G is difficult to measure and is only known with limited accuracy in SI units (see Cavendish experiment). The value of G
times the mass of an object, called the standard gravitational parameter, is known for the Sun and several planets to much higher accuracy than G
alone. As a result, the solar mass is used as the standard mass in the astronomical system of units.

The terms "mass" and "weight" are used interchangeably in ordinary conversation, but the two words don't mean the same thing. The difference
between mass and weight is that mass is the amount of matter in a material while weight is a measure of how the force of gravity acts upon that
mass.

And gasses don't pull together to make solids. They just don't.
Stop believing what you are taught and actually think about it.

Nobody should blindly believe what they are taught, or what they hear form other, or what they see/read on the internet.

Every person should take the information they are presented with, and with an open mind they should then apply critical thought, reasoning, and
scrutiny to that information (based on prior scrutinized and confirmed knowledge) prior to believing it to be true.

For example, you throw out a claim that you want me to believe that states "gasses can't become solid".

However, before I blindly believe what you are claiming, I can using critical thought to scrutinize that claim. Doing so tells me you are wrong,
because I know water vaper cab become water ice. I also know that a solid metal, such as lead, can be heated until it turns to a vapor.

Another example I have some limited first-hand knowledge is the manufacturing process of film deposition or "vapor deposition", where something (such
as a metal) has parts of it vaporized so that vapor could deposit as a thin film on another substrate.

In this case, the metal goes from a solid, then gas vapor, then solid again.

The universe above us. Our universe is, by textbook deffinition, a black hole. Ine could claim the "big bang" was nothing more than the creation of a
blackhole in our "parent" universe, when a star supernova'd, collapsed into a blackhole, and began eating up everything it could. Its the only way I
can see getting matter to just "appear" from seemingly nothing.

The universe above us. Our universe is, by textbook deffinition, a black hole. Ine could claim the "big bang" was nothing more than the creation of a
blackhole in our "parent" universe, when a star supernova'd, collapsed into a blackhole, and began eating up everything it could. Its the only way I
can see getting matter to just "appear" from seemingly nothing.

The Big Bang does not say what (if anything) existed before the Big Bang, so the Big Bang does not say everything came from nothing.

It needs to be understood that the Big bang does not attempt to tell us how our universe was suddenly populated with matter, but it attempts to tell
us how the universe itself (the fabric of the universe, not just the matter in it) came to look and act like what we have today.

In fact, the big bang theory does not go back to the point of the bang itself -- just to the point immediately AFTER (one "Plank-second" after -- the
theoretical shortest unit of time). Almost any physicists would tell you that our physics cannot yet explain what happened before that.

So to that end, it attempts to explain the expansion of the universe and the stuff in it that happened after the Big Bang, and how the primordial
energy that at one time was the entire universe may have settled into being the matter an energy we have today.

edit on 8/10/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

We don’t know for sure about the early universe, or that there was a Big Bang as proposed as the accepted theory. What we know for sure is that the
current state of the universe is expansion, and that has been extrapolated to it had to start from something small.

All of you are regurgitating science that is taught everywhere. But... How are these things existing in the first place? I understand gravity and
pressure and micro biology and all that crap. But? Where did it all come from? Anybody?

Anybody with a real answer? Phage? Anyone who can explain the real beginning of stuff?

You'd be hailed as a visionary and Nobel Prize winner if you could.

We can only guess.

One of such hypotheses is that "bubble" universes arise from local instability in vacuum, causing it to decay to a lower energy state. This also
implies a multiverse, and that our universe is just one of those many "bubble universes". en.wikipedia.org...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.